Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; LEROY T., JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THOMAS M. O'DONNELL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, NIAGARA FALLS, FOR DEVONTE M.T.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from orders terminating his parental rights with respect to the subject children on the ground that he suffers from a mental illness (see Social Services Law § 384-b [4][c]; Matter of Deondre M., 77 AD3d 1362). Contrary to the father's contention, there was an adequate foundation for the opinion of petitioner's expert that the father suffers from schizophrenia and has borderline intellectual functioning. That testimony, together with the testimony of caseworkers who supervised the father's visitation with the children, provided the requisite clear and convincing evidence that the father is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness ․, to provide proper and adequate care for [the] child[ren]” (§ 384-b [4][c]; see § 384-b [6][a]; Deondre M., 77 AD3d 1362). The contention of the father that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel is impermissibly based on speculation, i.e., that favorable evidence could and should have been offered on his behalf (see Matter of Brenden O., 20 AD3d 722, 723). Viewing the representation as a whole, we conclude that the father's attorney provided meaningful representation (see Matter of Elijah D., 74 AD3d 1846).
Patricia L. Morgan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CAF 09-02006
Decided: December 30, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)